Admiral's Edition General Thread

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

understood, but will they be wiped out? meaning can you still play vanilla witp even with AE installed?

No, AE will install as a different program and won't interfere with Witp saved games or mods. You will still be able to play WITP after AE, the question is will anyone still want to.[8|]

[Andy Mac]

The HQ conversion for free of units is still enabled but its AI only functionality.
 
To mitigate the AI not using PP's overly well we just set the units to auto convert.
 
Andy

[pad152]

[font="times new roman"]

Ron Saueracker[/font][font="times new roman"]
[/font][font="times new roman"]Respawn is for kids. It's bedtime kiddies in AE!!

  I like it! [:D]

Maybe the allied player should have to spend their PP's if they want to respawn (replace that lost CA, CL etc.). This would make the cost of losing capital ships more than it is now! [/font]

[HMSWarspite]

The whole respawn thing is a classic example of an apparent effect being modelled rather than the cause. In RL, ship names could be changed, and were to replace the lost 1942 CV. No extra hulls were built and the ships would have been present with different names has the CVs not been sunk. The only possible effect would have been an earlier ramp down in CV production, although even this I doubt because they only really stopped ships when it was obvious they would not finish in time, not because they had 'enough'. Thus WitP should never have had respawn, and either a bit of smart logic which flips all the names if the subject ship's namesake hasn't been sunk, or dupicate ships (having Wasp and Wasp II is hardly fatal!) should have been used.

The number of hulls should have always been the absolute!

I hope there are no outbreaks of loose thinking in AE.[;)]

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The whole respawn thing is a classic example of an apparent effect being modelled rather than the cause. In RL, ship names could be changed, and were to replace the lost 1942 CV. No extra hulls were built and the ships would have been present with different names has the CVs not been sunk. The only possible effect would have been an earlier ramp down in CV production, although even this I doubt because they only really stopped ships when it was obvious they would not finish in time, not because they had 'enough'. Thus WitP should never have had respawn, and either a bit of smart logic which flips all the names if the subject ship's namesake hasn't been sunk, or dupicate ships (having Wasp and Wasp II is hardly fatal!) should have been used.

The number of hulls should have always been the absolute!

I hope there are no outbreaks of loose thinking in AE.[;)]

It not just the CV's it's also CA's and CL's, the allied play doesn't suffer from lost, only get's delayed, I always found it strange that the allied play gets hurt more by a badly damaged CV's than in losing them, it can take longer to get a badly damaged CV far from home to get back and have it repaired + upgraded VS waiting for it's replacement. Yet, everyone complains about Japan's production!

What I suggest, that it cost more, including PP's to activate a replacement/re-spawn. Would the number of allied CV hulls remained the same if it wasn't for loses or would the allies have changed production to build something else? If there is ever a WITP II, I hope it includes player controlled production for both Japan & Allies. It would then be up to the player on what to build and what to try to replace, only then will the player face the true cost in lost of capital ships.

[Gem35]

But given the history of the war, Allies had an advantage second to none when it comes to productivity. The game models this very accuratly imo.
Japan is about the size of an average State in the Union, let's not get carried away here.

[John Lansford]

I've seen Japan's industrial productivity described as only slightly above that of Italy; the difference being that they prepared for the war prior to starting the fight.

[mdiehl]

Will "disable" Allied PP tracking be a selectable option? In my view the PP system is pretty much an excuse for hogtying the Allied player into following historical operational choices. Since it is often raised as an observation that a strategic game is NOT supposed to force people to replicate historical choices ("otherwise why not just go read a book" is the usual claim), and since the Japanese player is not substantially forced to do so, why should the Allied player be forced to do so?

It seems to me that one of the historical facts of the PTO is that the real Japanese did not know in advance that they were, in effect in WitP terms, basically "hardcoded" to quickly win in Malaya, Borneo and Indonesia. In contrast, in WitP, that outcome is such a GUARANTEED event that the Japanese players often (1) expand far beyond their historical conquest lines regardless of Allied efforts to oppose same, and (2) complain that the Allies don't leave enough units behind to be easily destroyed (and, thereby, run up the Japanese VP count); hence all the whimpering about Allied players choosing strategies of force conservation, strategic retirement to secure positions and consolidation in the early part of the war.

[jwilkerson]

One can disable the PP system for either side, by going into the editor and setting the PPs up to a very large number. This can be done now in stock and can be done in AE as well.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

But given the history of the war, Allies had an advantage second to none when it comes to productivity. The game models this very accuratly imo.
Japan is about the size of an average State in the Union, let's not get carried away here.

Which is why I find it silly when Japan can outproduce the Allies in planes for example!

[Flying Tiger]

It seems to me that one of the historical facts of the PTO is that the real Japanese did not know in advance that they were, in effect in WitP terms, basically "hardcoded" to quickly win in Malaya, Borneo and Indonesia. In contrast, in WitP, that outcome is such a GUARANTEED event that the Japanese players often (1) expand far beyond their historical conquest lines regardless of Allied efforts to oppose same, and (2) complain that the Allies don't leave enough units behind to be easily destroyed (and, thereby, run up the Japanese VP count); hence all the whimpering about Allied players choosing strategies of force conservation, strategic retirement to secure positions and consolidation in the early part of the war.

 
GUARANTEED?? Have you played against the jap AI recently??
 
No offence by the way - you made a very good point! I hope Andy and the rest of the team noted it.

[pad152]

[font="times new roman"]It's also silly that no allied plane ever goes out of production[/font]. [8|]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: pad152

[font="times new roman"]It's also silly that no allied plane ever goes out of production[/font]. [8|]

Where as Japan I can't keep a stockpile of them without having a few squadrons of obsolete aircraft on the map. Too bad allied production isn't on map, but I'm sure that would be a PITA to implement correctly.

[Andy Mac]

I dont assume anything is a given in terms of deployment.
 
If the allies get 18th Brit Div and the 2 Indian Bdes into Malaya and have a few days to rest and organise them before committing them to action
If Percival, Heath, Barstow and Murray Lyons are all replaced.
If the allies are not retreated but still manage to hold onto east Malaya AF's long enough to get reinforcements into Malaya without getting cut off and defeated in detail.
If the Japanese player tries to short change Malaya sending forces elsewhere
 
Lots of ifs buts and maybes

[Shark7]

Depends on who the player is really. I'm more likely to overload the Malaya striking force to get it over with more quickly. I'm also known to drop Paras in places to cut of the retreat of the northern Malaya forces.

Lots of different ways to play that one out. [;)]

[Speedysteve]

Apologies if I missed it but Mike Scholl mentioned something about Allied SigInt is left out of AE?[&:]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Apologies if I missed it but Mike Scholl mentioned something about Allied SigInt is left out of AE?[&:]

I think what he meant to say is that Allied SigInt is unchanged from stock.

[Speedysteve]

That's a shame. Any potential for a future patch? (I think most of us admit Allied SigInt is woefully under-represented in Stock).

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

That's a shame. Any potential for a future patch? (I think most of us admit Allied SigInt is woefully under-represented in Stock).

There is always potential....

EDIT - I don't know that the SigInit is woefuly underrepresented. What you are missing is the staff that can process it and present you with a synopsis that is "Actionable"

In one of the AAR's someone used Bodhi's utility to process the SigInt and determined the Japanese convoy routes in the game using the various transmissions detected and reports of ship locations...

[Speedysteve]

I disagree there to an extent. Bodhi's utility is great but............It's impossible to get a detailed set of OOB info on Japanese operations, impossible to know that Shinano would be at x,x co-ordinates on this rough dates. Impossible to know that IJN will be near Midway between 4-6th June etc?